Hermes Agent Data Services (x402)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns signals (risky selectors, owner status, transfer activity) and that these are investigative leads, not definitive verdicts. It also mentions pricing (0.05 USDC), which is a useful operational detail. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, whether payment is required upfront, or what happens if the token is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second clarifies its interpretive nature, and the third gives pricing. Every sentence earns its place, though the pricing could be considered secondary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how to interpret the signals, or what the parameters mean. The pricing and 'not a verdict' caveat help, but an agent would still be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly, especially regarding payment_signature and blocks.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'token contract' and 'Price 0.05 USDC' which hints at the token and payment_signature parameters, but it doesn't explain chain, blocks, or payment_signature semantics. The enum for chain is in the schema, but the description adds no meaning for the other parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing due-diligence signals for a token contract, including risky selectors, owner/renounced status, and transfer activity. It distinguishes itself from a verdict by saying 'Signals to investigate, not a verdict.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like token_report or pool_risk, though the specific mention of contract-level signals helps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when investigating a token contract's due-diligence signals. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like token_report or pool_risk. The phrase 'Signals to investigate, not a verdict' gives some guidance on interpretation but not on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only analytical calculation and possibly discloses a tool price ('Price 0.02 USDC'), but the price fragment is ambiguous and payment behavior/side effects are not clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a fragment ('Price 0.02 USDC') that is not self-explanatory and could be misleading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this is too thin: no return format, no payment_signature guidance, no explanation of chain values, and no conditions or failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers base, quote, pool, and notional, but leaves chain and payment_signature undefined. The description adds only 'constant-product' and 'trade size' context; it does not explain payment_signature, chain semantics, or how the cost relates to payment.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: computing pool depth, implied price, and constant-product slippage for a trade size. This differentiates it from siblings such as token_report or wallet_profile, though it lacks a verb and the trailing 'Price 0.02 USDC' is ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'for a trade size' implies use when evaluating a trade's slippage/risk, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing. Sibling tools are not referenced.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only listing operation ('list') and specifies the output contents, which is good. However, it doesn't disclose any potential caveats like whether the list is exhaustive, whether prices are live or cached, or whether the payment network/wallet info is always present. For a simple read-only catalog tool, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words that front-loads the key differentiator ('Free:') and packs in the resource and all three output attributes. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state whether the list is sorted, paginated, or complete, but for a simple catalog lookup this is not a critical omission. The sibling tools are all clearly different in scope, so an agent can route correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns (paid data services, prices, payment network, receiving wallet), which is the only semantic information an agent needs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by explaining the output scope.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('paid data services'), and specifies the exact information returned: prices, payment network, and receiving wallet. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_dd, pool_risk, token_report, and wallet_profile, which all sound like different analytical or reporting functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description begins with 'Free:' which implies this tool is the no-cost option for accessing data service information, providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Free:' prefix and the specific resource scope make the usage context clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the payment requirement (price 0.01 USDC, pay first, then pass payment_signature) and lists supported chains. It implies a read-only report generation without destructive actions, which is reasonable given the context, though not explicitly stated. The disclosure of the payment prerequisite is a significant behavioral trait beyond what schema would imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('ERC-20 on-chain report'), then lists supported chains and the payment requirement. Every sentence carries essential information, making it efficient and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description outlines the report content (metadata, supply, transfer activity, optional pool depth) and the payment prerequisite. It doesn't explain error handling or output format details, but for a report tool with 5 parameters, it covers the essential operational context. The payment flow is a critical prerequisite and is well disclosed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the payment_signature parameter's role ('pay first, then pass payment_signature') and mentions 'optional pool depth' aligning with the pool parameter. It doesn't detail blocks or token further, but schema descriptions already cover those. The added payment flow context slightly exceeds baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ERC-20 on-chain report' with specific content (metadata, supply, transfer activity, optional pool depth) and supported chains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_dd or pool_risk, which focus on other aspects. The verb and resource are explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional pool depth but doesn't explain when a user would choose this over sibling tools like pool_risk or contract_dd. The payment flow is described, but that's operational, not comparative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the output fields and the cost, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, data freshness, failure modes, or how payment_signature is used to settle the price.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful output details and pricing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must be more complete than this. It provides a few return fields and pricing but omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, payment behavior, and any contrast with sibling tools, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters. It only semantically explains address and token; chain, blocks, and payment_signature are left unexplained. The 'first and last block seen' output hints at block-awareness but does not clarify the blocks parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource scope (one address, one token) and the computed outputs (transfers in/out, counterparties, first and last block seen). It lacks an explicit verb but is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like pool_risk or token_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use wallet_profile instead of alternatives such as token_report or contract_dd, and no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. The scope statement is the only implicit hint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.